posted at 2:01 pm on June 12, 2013 by Allahpundit

Why is a local story that’s three months old suddenly exploding online this week? I saw half a dozen people tweet this clip earlier this morning, all with the same expressions of horror and outrage, even though it was first reported in early March. I’d never seen it before myself. My half-assed theory on why it’s catching on belatedly is that someone rediscovered it last week during NSA-palooza and saw it as some kind of metaphor for the futility of protesting state abuse of the power to invade your privacy. The analogy’s not perfect — the marshal here was reportedly fired, although the fate of “multiple employees and managers” who were also under investigation remains, as far as I know, unclear — but the past two weeks have been a “libertarian moment” and this clip is very, very libertarian-friendly. Even Lindsey Graham would think twice about state power after watching it. For a moment. Reluctantly.

Exit quotation from the KLAS report that broke this story: “The I-Teams investigation shows how the internal affairs investigation is revealing much larger problems at family court. There are multiple marshals involved and allegations ranging from sexual assaults to choking a citizen in court.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

That is the judge’s court room. I’m pretty sure she can express curiousity about what the officer is doing. I think she could also be helpful and point out that making an allegation of sexual assault against an officer is not an arrestable offense. Then again, maybe she is exceptionally ignorant about the law. In any case, she is unfit to be a judge.

The Judge has full authority in the courtroom. Within the wall of the Court, the Judge is almost like God. What this female judge did was shocking. Absolutely shocking. She should have been fired ASAP.

And all the police officers should be fired ASAP.

The one fact that lends credibility to the woman is the cop asking her to stand up to the mic and recant. That is very ODD for an officer to do in court.

Looking for more info on this story I was taken to a plethora of websites of all ideological persuasions (Dkos, Huff Post, numerous feminist sites, etc.), and they all, without exception, show complete and utter disgust at the treatment of this woman.

However, along comes the troll, who sees nothing wrong and indeed, after a few snarky, useless posts, decides to completely hijack the thread.

I’ve gone through most of the comments here and one thing is disturbingly missing: why hasn’t the court marshall been arrested for sexual assault? It’s great that he’s been fired; but you risk more than losing your job when you sexually assault a woman. Somthing’s amiss here.

I’ve gone through most of the comments here and one thing is disturbingly missing: why hasn’t the court marshall been arrested for sexual assault? It’s great that he’s been fired; but you risk more than losing your job when you sexually assault a woman. Somthing’s amiss here.

Alma on June 13, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I would argue for the same reason that we don’t charge peace Officers with “Kidnapping” or “Unlawful Detention” when they slip the handcuffs on you, or why we don’t charge them with “Terroristic Threatening” when they pull their fire arm and say “Don’t move or I will shoot.”

These acts and the search were done under the blanket of their lawful authority.

The marshal was fired because of mis-feasance or mal-feasance, not “Sexual Assault.” Peace Officers can do things that you and I cannot do as private citizens and searching (pretty) women is one of those things. Had correct procedures been followed, the person searching the young lady could ahve “felt her up” and looked at her “B**bs” legally, because they would ahve been female…you get the drill. A court bailiff has the power and responsibility to conduct searches, something you and I cannot do.

The problem is that this wasn’t properly executed, there is no crime for which to arrest her, and it seems (to me at least) this was all an excuse to run our hands over a pretty girl….but peace officers have that power; so the “crime” is not the looking or the feeling but the failure to follow correct procedure and false arrest, not Sexual Assault.

The Judge has full authority in the courtroom. Within the wall of the Court, the Judge is almost like God. What this female judge did was shocking. Absolutely shocking. She should have been fired ASAP.

And all the police officers should be fired ASAP.

The one fact that lends credibility to the woman is the cop asking her to stand up to the mic and recant. That is very ODD for an officer to do in court.

Conservative Samizdat on June 12, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Firing should only be a first step. All three of the perps in the court room need to be maxed out… what ever that means; law suits and possibly jail time.

That judge gave willing support to covering up the crime as far as I’m concerned, and she allowed the marshal to abuse his power in her courtroom. She would not want me on the jury.

why hasn’t the court marshall been arrested for sexual assault? It’s great that he’s been fired; but you risk more than losing your job when you sexually assault a woman. Somthing’s amiss here.

Alma on June 13, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Sexual assault has not been proven, and might not have occurred.

It is entirely possible that the marshal had no sexual interest in the woman but is simply an arrogant, obnoxious, self-centred twit who doesn’t care about other people’s feelings while doing his job. His search of a woman without another woman present is bad practise and incredibly stupid, but only he knows if was done for sexual gratification … he might be asexual for all we know.

If he was being a groping pervert, it is unlikely to be provable in any court since it is a “she said, he said” case; there is no evidence to back the accusation.

Allowing the accused to bully and arrest the accuser in a situation which is not dangerous to life and in which there are other options, is an elementary travesty of justice. A judge, of all people, ought to recognise injustice when they see it.

YiZhangZhe on June 12, 2013 at 4:28 PM

-
Sexual harassment claims are always to be treated a way that ensures that the alleged perp does not intimidate (or further harass) the accuser. Harassment in the Work Place Training 101.

His actions make him look guilty, and the judge’s make her seem to be allowing, perhaps even aiding his over reach.

The instant she make the accusation he should have been replaced… and if she was still to be arrested for some reason… let the replacing officer do so.

Since when is a trial required prior to an arrest? Do you seriously not know the difference between proof and probable cause.

Heck, even our legal standard for finding a criminal guilty allows for the possibility that the crime “might not have occurred.” The guilty standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not beyond any possibility.

Alma’s question implied that sexual assault was the cause of his dismissal, and thus implied that sexual assault had been proven rather than merely alleged or suspected.

Do you seriously not know the difference between proof and probable cause.

blink on June 14, 2013 at 2:41 AM

I do know the difference, and I think the “selected highlights” video and the commentary thereon provide neither proof nor probable cause for sexual assault. If you disagree, by all means lay out your case.

1. Why would you pretend that this video is the only evidence? Why would you pretend that an investigation hasn’t already occurred? Why would you pretend that the investigation didn’t result in the accused’s termination? Surely, you’re not definitively claiming that probable cause doesn’t exist. Even if the accused was terminated merely because it was found that he didn’t tell the truth to the investigators, then his credibility is called into question.

2. Why would you pretend that credible victim testimony can certainly be used as probable cause for an arrest? Or are you claiming that you think this victim’s testimony isn’t credible?

No, Alma’s question did NOT imply that sexual assault had been proven. The question implied that sufficient probable cause existed for an arrest.
blink on June 14, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Then we understand Alma’s question differently and I have responded according to my understanding of it.

1. Why would you pretend that this video is the only evidence? Why would you pretend that an investigation hasn’t already occurred? Why would you pretend that the investigation didn’t result in the accused’s termination?

Why do you imagine I am pretending anything? You seem to be looking for an argument for the sake of it.

My point in response to Alma was that there is no proof that a sexual assault has taken place. We now know that we understand Alma’s question differently; it makes no sense to parse my answer according to your understanding of the question.

I’m happy to let individual, actual police officers inform us what they personally would consider sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest for sexual assault.

Meanwhile, other than a confession by the marshal or the credible testimony of a third person I cannot see how in this particular case evidence could be obtained that would corroborate the allegation of sexual assault, and I cannot see how an uncorroborated allegation can, of itself, be construed as probable cause.

2. Why would you pretend that credible victim testimony can’t be used as probable cause for an arrest?

blink on June 14, 2013 at 11:49 AM

The expression “credible victim testimony” begs the question. She is only a victim if the assault described by her testimony actually took place. Her testimony is merely the starting point for an investigation to establish the truth of her testimony.

An investigation has already established that he did touch her and did ask her to lift her blouse/shirt but if the precise actions taken did not exceed his lawful powers then the question of whether he assaulted her (as oppose to making her ‘feel distressed and uncomfortable’) will come down to highly subjective matters such as whether or not he ‘lingered’ or ‘fondled’ or behaved ‘demeaningly’. Again, without a third party testimony, it is her opinion -v- his opinion and a dispute about opinions alone is going nowhere.

Essentially, there are two serious allegations in play:

Allegation 1 is that the marshal improperly touched the woman.
Allegation 2 is that the woman falsely accused the marshal of improperly touching her.

Why should allegation 1 be preferred over allegation 2? In the absence of third-party corroboration, why is either allegation more or less credible or convincing than the other? If he is to be arrested because of her allegation why shouldn’t she be arrested (not by him, of course) because of his allegation?

If you want to argue that there is probable cause for arrest for sexual assault then go ahead: lay out a reasoned case for it.

Then we understand Alma’s question differently and I have responded according to my understanding of it.

YiZhangZhe on June 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Then your understanding of the question is irrational.

Obviously, Alma knew that there had been an investigation.

Why do you imagine I am pretending anything?

Why else would you ignore the fact that there was an investigation?

My point in response to Alma was that there is no proof that a sexual assault has taken place.

What does this have to do with whether or not someone should be arrested?

Are you confusing the terms proof and evidence? Surely, you know that there is evidence of sexual assault right? You know that proof isn’t required to have probable cause right?

I’m happy to let individual, actual police officers inform us what they personally would consider sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest for sexual assault.

I can absolutely guarantee you that none of them would say that PROOF is required to arrest someone for sexual assault.

Meanwhile, other than a confession by the marshal or the credible testimony of a third person I cannot see how in this particular case evidence could be obtained that would corroborate the allegation of sexual assault, and I cannot see how an uncorroborated allegation can, of itself, be construed as probable cause.

Obviously, you’ve never conducted any type of investigation.

Do you know why he was fired? If not, then you don’t know what the investigation determined.

Her testimony is merely the starting point for an investigation to establish the truth of her testimony.

If you want to argue that there is probable cause for arrest for sexual assault then go ahead: lay out a reasoned case for it.

I was never arguing that there is probable cause for an arrest. I was arguing that PROOF is not needed to make the arrest, and I was arguing that YOU don’t definitively know that there is insufficient evidence for probable cause.

I was asserting that credible victim testimony (or credible alleged victim testimony) is enough to establish probable cause for arrests. PROOF is not required.

blink on June 14, 2013 at 5:58 PM

I’d like to be more clear here. I’m saying that the testimony may be enough to establish probable cause. I’m not saying that it always does. YiZhangZhe was implying that it’s never enough – that proof is required.